DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
1- A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Amendment
2- The Request for Continued Examination amendment filed has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
3- Examiner has considered applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 6 , 11 as set forth in the final office action mailed on 9/10/2025. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
4- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments changed the scope of the invention, especially for the dependent claims.
5- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings/suggestions from the same references of the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7- Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi et al. (PGPUB No. 20230057548)
As to amended claims 1, 15, 18, Sambi teaches a system, and its method of use, for monitoring properties of high power laser beam or a laser beam entering a laser processing head (Abstract, Figs. 1-3), comprising an entry port (51) for the laser beam (L); a first deflection mirror (10/16) arranged behind the entry port along a laser beam path of the incident laser beam for reflecting the laser beam (direction downward in the figure of L); a first lens or lens group (5/6) arranged behind the first deflection mirror along the reflected beam path; a separating mirror (8) arranged along the reflected beam path for partly coupling (L1 along P1) the laser beam out (¶ 31-33, 46, 65-66 for ex.); a second lens (19) arranged behind the separating mirror along the partly outcoupled laser beam path (Figs. 1-3); a beam shaping element (collimating lens 3) arranged in the beam path (beam path from source 4 to mechanical piece 100), wherein the beam shaping element is a physically separate and distinct component from the first deflection mirror (10/16), first lens or lens group (5/6), dichromatic mirror (or separating mirror), and the second lens (19); and a sensor (9) arranged behind the second lens in the direction of the partly out-coupled laser beam path, which the partly outcoupled part of the laser beam hits (Figs. 1-3); wherein element (8) is configured to transmit a machining wavelength and reflect a diagnostic wavelength toward the sensor (since the wavelengths are not claimed to be distinct and different, the lights transmitted and reflected towards the sensor are used for cutting, ¶ 28, 33-35 for ex., and for wavefront analysis, ¶ 46 for ex. , respectively.)
Sambi does not teach expressly wherein the separating mirror is a dichromatic mirror.
However, the CO2 lasers used in laser cutting applications, as mentioned in Sambi (¶ 4-5), use predominantly wavelengths around 10.6, and alternatively 10.2 and 9.3 microns, whereas CO2 emission spectrum includes multiple wavelengths in between those three wavelengths, and outside of their interval (see evidence links cited in the Conclusion but not relied upon in this rejection). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a dichromatic mirror to separate the emission laser from the CO2 laser in order to transmit one or a combination of the three useful wavelengths, and reflect for characterization, another wavelength distinct from the useful wavelengths towards the sensor, preserving thereby the maximum light power for the cutting applications (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Sambi so that the separating mirror is a dichromatic mirror, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the emission laser powers for cutting applications.
(claim 2) wherein the laser beam entry port is a laser light cable connected to a laser beam source (¶ 4-6, 28; fiber lasers are considered).
(claim 3) wherein the first lens or lens group focuses the laser beam (Fig. 3; focusing light at F).
(claim 4) wherein the second lens or lens group focuses the partly outcoupled portion of the laser beam onto the sensor (Fig. 3; focusing the diverging light along P1).
(claims 5, 16-17) wherein the first and/or second lens or lens group is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens selected from liquid lenses, liquid crystalline lenses, or elastomeric lenses, wherein the optical properties of a tunable lens are changeable by external excitation (one PHOSITA would have considered using the moving means 7 in Figs. 1-2, or replace it with a deformable lens species from the limited genus of tunable lenses - See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered)-, with possible numerical control -¶ 15, 43-44-, in the system of Fig. 3 for obvious advantages of adjusting capabilities in focusing lights on the sample or on the sensor to optimize the cutting or the characterization of the laser beams).
(amended claims 6-7) wherein the first lens or lens group is connected to a first displacement element (7) for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis, each displacement element comprising a linear actuator configured to displace the respective lens or lens group along a beam axis of the laser beam (¶ 43-44 for ex; moving means 7/71).
Sambi does not teach expressly the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement element for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis; (claim 7) wherein the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement thereof along a beam axis of the laser beam.
However, One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a similar displacement element to the moving element 7 with the second lens or lens group and/or the sensor to numerically adapting the focusing to the size of the sensor and its resolution power for obvious advantages of wavefront measurement optimization.
(claims 8-10, 19-20) wherein an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor; wherein an aperture is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the second lens (optical element 11 is considered as an aperture/spatial filter, and a spectral filter -since all optical elements/windows do present a transmission/blocking spectra); (claim 10) wherein a hole of the aperture is offset from a beam axis of the laser beam (one can consider the optical axis to be along the P direction and the transmission direction of window 11 is clearly off-set from the beam axis of the laser beam along P).
(amended claim 11) wherein a protective glass window (¶ 28; glass cover 4) is disposed adjacent to an output tip of an optical fiber (¶ 28), and a third lens or lens group (2/3) is disposed downstream of the protective glass window along the laser beam path (Fig. 3).
(claim 12) wherein the third lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens (see the rejection of claim 5, with the advantage of adapting the position of the third lens to optimize the collimating of the laser beam before the reflecting mirror and the lens 5/6).
(claim 14) wherein the first mirror is a tip- tilt mirror or deformable mirror (adaptive piezoelectric-based element 10/16 is considered as the beam shaping element; ¶ 69 for ex.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
/https://novantaphotonics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/NOVT_Whitepaper_Alternative_CO2_Laser_Wavelengths.pdf and https://www.keyence.com/products/marker/laser-marker/types/co2-laser-marking.jsp (appears relevant to claims 1, 15)
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877